Strasbourg, 16 December 2004

Dear Mr R.,

On 25 February 2004, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Anti-Fraud office (OLAF). On 18 March 2004, you sent to me further documents related to your complaint.

On 24 March 2004, I forwarded the complaint to the Director-General of OLAF. OLAF sent its opinion on 22 June 2004. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 29 July 2004. I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

The present complaint concerns OLAF's handling of the job application sent by the complainant on 18 April 2003.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that OLAF had failed to reply to his job application of 18 April 2003. According to the complainant, he only received an acknowledgement of receipt on 16 May 2003, by which he was informed that his application had been forwarded to the competent service.

The complainant claimed that equal rights and opportunities should be effectively recognised for disabled people(1).

THE INQUIRY

The OLAF's opinion

In its opinion on the complaint, OLAF made in summary the following comments:

The complainant had sent his job application by fax addressed to the OLAF's spokesman, Mr B., on 16 April 2003. On 16 May 2003, an acknowledgement of receipt had been forwarded to the complainant informing him that his application had been transferred to the "Administration, Human Resources and Budget" Unit.

On 8 August 2003, the Head of the relevant Unit, Mr M., had called the complainant and asked him to submit his Curriculum Vitae in Italian, since the English version already submitted appeared to be unclear. The complainant forwarded the Italian version of his Curriculum Vitae to OLAF on 12 August 2003.

Soon thereafter, the complainant called Mr M. who told him that having reviewed his Curriculum Vitae, he had reached the conclusion that the complainant could not be recruited by OLAF. This conclusion had been based on the fact that the complainant had not participated in a competition or selection procedure, that his language skills appeared weak and that his background did not correspond to any staff need of OLAF.

OLAF made every effort to process the hundreds of spontaneous job applications that it received every year as promptly as possible. The complainant's allegation that OLAF had failed to reply to his job application therefore appeared to be unfounded, since OLAF had provided him with an oral reply during the telephone conversation of mid-August 2003.

As regards the complainant's claim that equal rights and opportunities should be effectively recognised for disabled people, OLAF pointed out that it fully respected the policy of non-discrimination towards disabled people. In its notices of selection procedures, the reference that OLAF is an equal opportunity employer was regularly included. Furthermore, OLAF was fully prepared to accommodate the needs of disabled persons as required by the relevant provisions of the EU legislation in this field.

In the complainant's case, OLAF had dealt with his job application in a non-discriminatory manner. The decision not to offer a contract to the complainant had been based on objective criteria and the complainant's disability had played no role in the decision.

The complainant's observations

In his observations, the complainant stated that although he took note of the fact that OLAF received hundreds of spontaneous job applications every year, he considered that there had been a lack of sensibility as regards his own application. He took the view that OLAF should have provided him with a written reply. The complainant also stressed that in a telephone conversation with Mr M., the latter had affirmed that the complainant's issue was of secondary importance because at that time the priority for OLAF was the drafting of the reply following a recent audit which had been carried out by the competent Community authorities.

Furthermore, the complainant asked the European Ombudsman to consider the possibility of forwarding his application to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

THE DECISION

1 Introductory remark

1.1 The Ombudsman notes that in his observations, the complainant asked him to consider the possibility of forwarding his application to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

1.2 In this regard, the Ombudsman would like to stress that the complainant should personally submit his application to EFSA or to any other European institution or body he wishes to work for. The Ombudsman deals with complaints made against the Community institutions or bodies; he does not have the task to act on behalf of citizens who wish to apply for a post or to send their applications for posts to an institution or body.

2 The alleged failure to reply by OLAF

2.1 In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that OLAF had failed to reply to his job application of 18 April 2003. According to the complainant, he had only received an acknowledgement of receipt on 16 May 2003, by which he was informed that his application had been forwarded to the competent service.

2.2 In its opinion, OLAF put forward that the complainant had been provided with an oral reply in a telephone conversation of mid-August 2003 between the complainant and the Head of the "Administration, Human Resources and Budget" Unit, Mr M.

2.3 In his observations, the complainant argued that there had been lack of sensibility by OLAF as regards his own job application and that OLAF should have provided him with a written reply.

2.4 Principles of good administration require the Community institutions to reply to letters from citizens(2). In the present case, the complainant sent a job application to OLAF on 18 April 2003. On 16 May 2003, OLAF sent an acknowledgement of receipt to the complainant, a copy of which has been submitted by OLAF as an enclosure to its opinion. In this letter, the complainant was informed that his job application had been transferred to the competent service to be dealt with and that he would receive a reply, in principle within one month. During a telephone conversation of mid-August 2003 between the complainant and the Head of the "Administration, Human Resources and Budget" Unit of OLAF, the complainant was informed that he could not be recruited by OLAF and the reasons of this decision were explained to him. The complainant has not disputed this point.

2.5 The Ombudsman notes that no reply in writing was ever sent to the complainant. In his observations, the complainant put forward that OLAF should have provided him with a written reply. This could be considered as a new allegation. It should however be noted that, as mentioned above, the complainant received information on why it had not been possible to accept his application on the occasion of a telephone conversation in August 2003. OLAF has furthermore repeated these reasons in its opinion on the present complaint. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that there are no grounds to pursue his inquiries into this aspect of the case.

2.6 However, the Ombudsman would like to remind that it is good administrative practice to deal with requests made by citizens without undue delay. The complainant sent his job application to OLAF on 18 April 2003. On the basis of the information in his possession, it appears that in spite of several telephone contacts between OLAF and the complainant, OLAF replied to the complainant's job application only more than four months after it had been submitted. In the absence of any explanation regarding this delay, the Ombudsman takes the view that this cannot be considered as a reasonable period and that the failure by OLAF to provide a prompt reply to the complainant constitutes an instance of maladministration.

2.7 The Ombudsman will therefore make a critical remark below.

3 The complainant's claim

3.1 The complainant claimed that equal rights and opportunities should be effectively recognised as regards disabled people.

3.2 In its opinion, OLAF stated that it fully respects the policy of non-discrimination towards disabled people. OLAF further stressed that in its notices of selection procedures the reference that OLAF is an equal opportunity employer is regularly included. OLAF also put forward that it is fully prepared to accommodate the needs of disabled persons as required by the relevant provisions of the EU legislation in this field. In the complainant's case, OLAF submitted that it had dealt with his job application in a non-discriminatory manner.

3.3 The Ombudsman notes that, as regards the present case, OLAF pointed out that the decision not to offer a contract to the complainant had been based on objective criteria and that the complainant's disability had played no role in the decision.

On the basis of the information provided by the complainant and by OLAF, the Ombudsman considers that there are no elements which would call into doubt this explanation. The Ombudsman furthermore takes the view that there are no reasons to assume that OLAF does not follow the relevant legislation in order to avoid any discrimination based on disability.

3.4 The Ombudsman therefore considers that there has been no maladministration by OLAF as regards this aspect of the case.

4 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark:

It is good administrative practice to deal with requests made by citizens without undue delay. The complainant sent his job application to OLAF on 18 April 2003. On the basis of the information in his possession, it appears that in spite of several telephone contacts between OLAF and the complainant, OLAF replied to the complainant's job application only four months after it had been submitted. The Ombudsman takes the view that this cannot be considered as a reasonable period and that the failure by OLAF to provide a prompt reply to the complainant constitutes an instance of maladministration.

Given that this aspect of the case concerns procedures relating to specific events in the past, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The Director-General of OLAF will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) The complainant is a disabled citizen.

(2) Article 13 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, available on the Ombudsman's website: http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu.